Jeffery Wilson

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support, custody and mobility, and equalization.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in calculating his income, allowing the respondent to relocate to New York with the children, discounting family loans for equalization purposes, and managing the trial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings, application of the mobility test, or valuation of the debts.

The court also held that while the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination on an expert report, it did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial.

The appellant father appealed an order varying a trial judgment that had removed the child from the respondent mother's home.

The trial judge had transferred custody to the father due to the mother's unwarranted interference with his access rights.

The appeal judge found the trial judge erred in principle by focusing excessively on the mother's conduct rather than the best interests of the child, and varied the order to award joint custody while allowing the child to remain in his lifelong home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the father's appeal, agreeing that the trial judge failed to consider the impact of removing the child from his residence and siblings.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision that imputed his income for child support purposes after he abandoned his successful independent electrical contracting business for a lower-paying salaried position.

The trial judge found him intentionally underemployed under s. 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, averaged his previous three years of corporate income, and grossed it up to account for the lower corporate tax rate he paid compared to a salaried employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of intentional underemployment and the gross-up of corporate income to ensure consistent treatment of spouses under the Guidelines.

The respondent wife's cross-appeal for increased spousal support was also dismissed.